importance of conversation about ideas, and she's played an important part in creating in series in thinking about the kinds of conversations and conversation lists that we should host here. so, sue, thanks very much. our conversationist tonight are extremely well-known members of the chicago national intelligent you'll culture and legal worlds. my introductions of them will be brief since i feel confident that all of you know something of them and their work. scot turow has had a fascinating career, mixing work as a prominent lawyer at the firm with writing and especially the writing of fiction. his novels have won much acclaim from reviewers, and from his peers intoazed by their receipt of prestige use honors including
a british silver dagger award. more over, they have reached an enormous audience. millions of copies of them have sold. mr. turow's probone know contributions to the legal environment to the state of illinois among other places are notable including his involvement with the hernandez case and with the reexamination of the death penalty here. he is currently serving his second term as president of the authors guild, most much you probably now about it. but in case you don't, it's american organization that supports and provides a range of probone know advice to authors and has taken strong stands on going the books project. i have to say one of the thins i like most about scott is that he is an around dent and knowledge able baseball fan. another is he's a long time friend. i want to add that he if you
haven't read his 1977book, i urge you to do so. at chicago magazine has recently reminded us, fredsha poor row of the yale law school believes that richard -- there's good reason to come to the conclusion. first he's been a member of the seventh circuit of the united states court of appeals since 1981 and has written a vast body of legal opinion. during that time, he published many books and articles articles in recent years he's being a much-discussed blogger. third taken as group, his publications explore what i think is a remarkable change of intellectual interest. doing so with great so subtlety and he helped educate and train the university of law school where he's remained on the
faculty since becoming a judge. among what i think are his most interesting books, his study of the decline of public intiewjt yules. and, i might add, the sash issuing -- introduction he wrote for james stevens liberty, equality, and fraternity. it is a good introduction, i believe, to judge poser in's approach to thinking about big issues that are legal but more than legal. this evening, mr. turow and judge poser in are going to talk about books, authors, libraries and their faith in the digital age. obviously, the issues involved are important to us here at the nu berry. and we think they should be important to everyone. let me provide a little context for the discussion that is going to ensue by quoting two recent seemingly contrasting comments
by people who have connections with the newberry. one comes from robert h jackson. a truths trustee of ours. who introduced books on hard time at the country's most your club of new york. today, books face the four horsemen of the book media e pop lis, computer, video, the internet, and the iphone. history is changing books and it's something for us to worry about, unquote. then there is what princeton's anthony graphton recipient of the new berry award wrote in the book codex in crisis. sit in your local coffee shop and your laptop can tell you a lot especially if you wield your
search terms adaptly. if you want deeper more local knowledge. you will still have to take the narrower path through the library doors and into the land of physical reading material. gentleman, we are grateful to both of you for being here this evening, and we look forward to your conversation. [applause] i promised that david that i would start, and this will be basically sort of a few minutes of gathering on my part. as david mentioned, i am the president of the author's guild. and i did it first time in the early 1990's and the difference
now is remarkable. i spent the yesterday afternoon and this morning in washington, making stops as president of the author's guild in the various senate and house chambers talking with intent yule property staff, and finally this morning, a large meeting at the justice department talking about antitrust issues effecting the book industry. all of them relating to the digital revolution. and just to throw out some of the many problems, the electronic book, which probably does not encounter universal favor in this audience.
but you know, the e book is unquestionably here to stay. it's here to stay for a couple of reasons. one, is port ability everrability. those of us who spend a lot of time on airplanes know that it's a lot easier to have the ipad that i use to write on now. then to be carrying three bulkier books with me. it's also here to stay, because i think publishers have be begun to realize it thatmatically reduces their cost structure. the publishing is referred to as a 19th century business dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th serving i are 100 years are too late. they were exposed to the e-book, now they realize they don't have printing cost. they don't have warehouses cost,
they don't have shipping costs and most gloriously, the book business is always operated on a model that the publisher bears the risk of sale. meaning that if ship books to a story, and they don't sell, the book seller ships them back to the publisher. the e book is seemingly here to say. with it, it has brought many per riels and opportunities. -- perils and opportunities. among the concerns, of course, are first, book piet piracy is becoming rampant. this is, you know, the congress tried to deal with this recently, and piece of ill-fated legislation that was known as, you know, sopa stop online piet sei act. or. pipa i don't remember what e
acronym was. the internet community rose up in horror. book piracy like all kinds of intellectual sprout a growing problem. it concerns me as president of the author's guild. everything is being piet pirated. it's no at special curse. at the bottom of our the food change, our authors, if their margins are nibbled into any further, their books won't be published. so that is one problem. the e-book, obviously, has created the risk of enormous concentration in the book business. the e-book was not really invented by amazon, they pioneered the sale. at one point, couple of years ago, they had 90% of the e bock market. they have still have 60% of the
e-book market. and one worries about what would happen in a market that is that concentrated. so you know, that is another concern. the mere survival of publishers is another question today. the book business has not been terribly profitable for quite some time. certainly since 9/11. and whether the so-called brick and mortar publishers will survive with amazon is not going into the publishing business too. you know, that is that's a separate issue from my own perspective, my publishers have always added value both in terms of the marketing of books and editing of books. but perhaps another model is going to emerge.
i'm not particularly eager to be an entrepreneur in the book business. and highering my own editors and hiring my own marketing people. not because i haven't been blessed to be in a position where i suppose that's feasible but simply because i don't know how to do those things. and i would rather spend my time writing than worrying about the marketing of my books. and then, of course, there is the question of special pertinence here, which is whether libraries are going to survive. let me step back and say that the combination of book discounting, and now the e-book have made the survival of bookstores very much in doubt. and especially if amazon occupies that space in the way
they have. it's going to be very hard for any book retailers to survive and i can explain many more detail why the world developed that way. that has to do with the fact that amazon was -- when the kindle came into being was willing to sell e-books losing $5 every time they sell e-books. debt and others prevented books from trying to get into the same business. but so bookstores are hard pressed, boarders closed stoishes last year. independent stores have closed all over the country. and to whatever extent, bookstores are intellectual centers in the community. the existence is threatened from perspective of authors,
bookstores generally speaking are where the site from which new authors have emerged. the online sales of books has been great for me, personally as it is for any best selling author. but like a lot of our popular immediate i can't internet tends i think narrow rather than broaden interests. then if bookstores are disappearing, will the libraries not be for a behind? here the issues are different, and that is because of the prost prospect of near-universal access through the computer terminal in your home. and wily brairs still -- will libraries still exist in that environment? google, a few years ago scanned
the collection of several major university libraries and wanted to make the contents available for sampling by potential readers. the authors guild sued them because in our view, google was only displaying snippets from to each individual user, they were using the whole book and selling advertising in doing so. and so google claims it's a fair use. we think it isn't. the case was settled on whey thought were generally reasonable terms. but the justice department objected because so-called works, which are books whose copyright ownership can no longer be determined was covered by the settlement necessarily and google would have ended up
with a de facto monopoly. there was reason to disprove the settlements like the justice did. that is being litigated. in a world where it's clearly a good thing for a 10-year-old who can speak english in china to be able to have access to the full contents of the university of michigan library. but what happens to an institution like this one in that world? having fired a few missiles, i will turn it over to judge poser in. when david i i talked about the program who would be an interesting companion and conversation. i immediately thought of judge poser in. he is one of the most for a
thinking public intents that we have. i knew at somebody who published as many books as he has he contemplated our digital future. >> my perspective is quite different. i'm not a best-selling author. my books are -- i guess they're academic. they don't sell many copies, and they don't generate much income. so whatever you're dealing with issues of of our literature or any kind of writing, there are two basic interests you have to consider. one is the incentives of people to create the art, the literature and so on. that of course what scott stresses, what the author's
guild is obviously interested. the other is the distribution of the works and the access of people to these works. and it's distribution and access that has been revolutionized by computers. and in that revolution, which i think is a tremendous, tremendously good thing, but it does have a negative implications for some creativity. i think it's a scandal, myself that google has been frustrated in the efforts to digitize all works ever published. they ought to be all dig -- digitized and assessable to everybody in the world. otherwise you're just with
holding from people the access to the great body of human thought. .. so they have a future, a diminished future because to the extent that they are providing an access service, when all works of art and literature are digitized, and they will be eventually, fewer scholars will come to research libraries to do
research. they will research it on their laptops. it is just such an immensely efficient mode of distribution and it really should be universalized. it is costless, right? it is instantaneous. i happened to be a tremendous am i erred not only of google but of amazon, which is an unbelievable resource. it is just so immensely easy to obtain bucks through amazon. now, where the bookstores have have -- well actually you know some bookstores have actually benefited from amazon, because amazon has provided a market to small bookstores that specialize in out-of-print work, so i did a
lot of out of it brooks -- books through these booksellers through amazon and amazon not only provides access to these people, but they also you know, i know what your experience -- my experience with amazon is terrific. you get books lent to you by some absolutely unknown, tiny bookseller, who knows where, and yet you know, it's prompt and whatever they represent the condition of the book, that is how it comes. so, some bookseller's actually are benefiting from amazon. but the only real advantage that a conventional bookstore has over amazon is browsing. but that is going to change, because amazon already you know, it provides recommendations.
they are looking at what you are ordering and they are using that to make recommendations. that is an artificial intelligence service that is not highly developed. it's unsophisticated and it doesn't work well, but that is a matter of time before it advances. computer science will provide much more intelligence advice from amazon and what you should be considering while browsing. so i don't think the bookstores, part from these special out-of-print esoteric stuff, i don't think they have, i don't think they have the future. and as for libraries, the standard libraries, they are just dying, right? of all the ways to get access to a book, going into a library and
looking in a card catalog and going to do shelving, i made that is hopeless really. [laughter] if you want to do research, you do it digitally. you get access to -- i mean you should get able to have access to every book in the world. so i just don't see, i don't see that. you know the students, the college university students, they don't go to university libraries anymore. they go to the university of chicago library. they walk into it you know. you won't see any people there. if you walk into the stacks you will see some kids drinking coffee or what have you, socializing. it's just not efficient research. and as i say, as as far as
storage is concerned, you know you could put every book that has ever been published, the full text and you can add and in all the works of art and all the music and you could probably put it on a chip. been the whole world would have access to it. i don't think these libraries can compete. there has been a significant reduction in the use of university libraries. now, book sales, the e-books, i actually like them, the e-books that the sale of hard books although, it hasn't increased but it's sort of has held its own. that is not the problem.
i much prefer reading books that are, better in the old-fashioned printed book. if i'm doing research and working on an opinion it's much easier to look on google but if i want to read an entire book i would rather have the book. but if you want the hard books, it's hard to beat amazon as a motive to the distribution of those books compared to bookstores. so, what are the effects on the authors and the creators? well, it's probably negative, because as scott says, there is a lot of piracy and once all this stuff is floating around in digital form, it's fair eec to appropriate with no real protection against it. people like me don't care, because it's not a significant part of my income. and of course, it is also
brought a lot of people to read their books so piracy is all -- actually a two edge sword because you know, if there is piracy more people read your books and maybe some of the pirates will become interested and maybe they will buy your books. [laughter] microsoft for example complains bitterly about piracy in the third world, people stealing their operating system. i think they are kidding, because what happens with my -- microsoft is these people, they have stolen the operating system and now when they are their microsoft users there are also other microsoft products that they decide they want so you can have microsoft and not apple people which helps microsoft. so then the question is, there are other ways you know which
historically and no reason why can't be featured too his authors are compensated. it used to be patronage, were not royalties. royalties are relatively recent developments. as long as there is a demand for new works, for literature and art and so on. there are lots of different ways to compensate and offsetting the effects of piracy. but i think it is, i think scott is right, there is an impact and it hits the least established authors. mostly it's a trade-off between the great access that computerization gives to the consumer of intellectual products and the disincentives for the creators of intellectual products, if they are not fully compensated.
>> well, first i have to defend the authors guild pursuing google. and this is just google digitize the contents of these libraries, not as an act of all tourism. they did it as a commercial venture and they are selling the advertising every time you go and look at the page. frankly, google and the authors and the publishers all agreed on the way to divide the the incomn the settlement and you know unfortunately the court, for its own reasons, didn't approve along with the justice department. so the settlement perished, but it's just, it's a fight over who is going to make the money. a lot of this involves -- a lot of these issues revolve
around the concept of copyright, which you know has always existed as long as the republican constitution provides for protection for inventors and creators, and copyright is a limited monopoly that is granted to the author or in the case of the inventor. and it's supposed to be the incentive that the creator has that they can exclude people from using their intellectual property, their work for a period of time then eventually things cash into the public domain. a lot of this has become the creature of large corporations so that the period of copyright has been extended. most recently due to the activism of the walt disney company, which didn't want
mickey mouse casting into public domain. and, there is no doubt that copyright and the need to enhance the public latte of knowledge, and to some extent in conflict. the way that conflict has been resolved under our existing model is through the existence of libraries, where you have free access to the intellectual property created by authors. software manufacturers by the way, many of them don't like the so-called for sale doctrine or the library of lending rights that exist in the copyright laws. they don't want any exemptions. but one of the significant, i think, important, the significance of libraries and
the importance is the fact that access to books is free. you walk into a library and this world of knowledge is available to you for nothing, and so one of the pirates of the google settlement provided that there would be access to the google collection in every public library. there would be a terminal providing for free access to the contents of the seven libraries. and so when we excelled amazon, we also have to ask the question about what happens to the young, the poor and the elderly who have been traditional users of our public libraries and probably even to some extent this institution.
and it would be unfortunate if the net effect of this attempt to broaden access to the world of knowledge endpoint and subexcluding certain people. now this has been a threat to the digital world from the beginning, and it's still with us and the problem has just transferred to the world of looks. but, it is a significant concern. the libraries that are trying to make arrangements with publishers now to download, and make the library sites where e-books can be downloaded. many public libraries around the country are doing that. some of them of course want to do it without limitation, and
literally supplant amos m. -- amazon by using the library lending rights to make e-books available for free through their portal, in which case of course one copy of every book will be sold because the library will make it available to everybody in the world. authors and publishers of course are up in arms about that idea. but, i don't know if jeff wants to respond to that or answer the broader question is which is what you think the broader future of copyright is? >> well, i am not a fan of copyright actually. [laughter] i do certainly agree with you that google is not motivated by all tourism. this is a jungle, right? whether it's authors or booksellers, everybody is
struggling or financial advantage. so, i think the first copyright law certainly in the english-speaking world, in the english-speaking world and think it is about 17.10 or 17.9. so the world's greatest literature of course is before then. you have the greek tragedians and you have done today. as i said, there are a lot of other incentives for writing besides royalties based on your ability to forbid other people to copy your stuff. there are a lot of people that write out of compulsion and try to make money. they have to eat, but that is not why they are writing.
they would love to get rich, but they rights because they have a great drive to do it. or they have patrons. they have nowadays, we actually have a patron. there are a lot of writers employed by universities, so their employment, they are actually compensated for writing, they have a salary and it covers both their teachings and their writings. so patronage remains an important mode of compensating authors that is part of copyright. also, and especially now, there are all sorts of ways in which a successful writer makes money, other than from the sale of their books. they are invited to lectures.
they exploit other media, you know, movies, tv series and so on. so the problem, the problem with copyright is, it's a tremendous, there are tremendous blockages of access. the fair use doctrine that scott mentioned, this has been scandalously contracted by publishers. you know, so you get a book and on the copyright page it will say, no part of this book can be reproduced without the permission of the publisher. that happens to be legally false
obviously i wrote a paper in which i said that publishers and authors and so on who misrepresent a copyright rights, the rights they have, by in effect denying the fair use doctrine, they will lose their copyright. so the fair use doctrine says that you are permitted without getting the permission beyond that compensated office, you are permitted to quote parts of the work, or use it in other ways, you know, provided that the justification for this appropriation without seeking permission, and of course any time someone quotes a book or a newspaper article or what have you from a copyright, he is
using a copyright and reproduce copyright work without authorization, without seeking permission and yet, it is lawful. i think people should be free to republish an academic work and maybe with the exception of a textbook, an academic article for example without getting permission from the author. i get all these pathetic e-mails. someone says you now i want to make 10 copies of your article and they want my permission. is there a fee? of course you have my permission and there is no fee.
and you know, the -- all sorts of -- when you make a movie, you run into a fair use minefield because you might accidentally photograph in your movie some, some painting on a wall. on an exterior wall there was a painting and there happened to be captions under the frame of the picture and they were sued for infringement of copyright for copying. copyright is just a terrible breyer patch for authors. on the one hand the original author wants to -- wants protection against appropriation of his work. on the other hand, he would also
like to be able to use a lot of publish stuff. where would shakespeare be in a copyright era? he was a shameless plagiarist. not only of the story, the story details, but he would take the language. if you read, great example i particularly like, in plutarch's life of visit marc anthony or julius caesar, that the great description of cleopatra and her barge on the nile river. it is terrific. it's fascinating. shakespeare took the plutarch, english translation of plutarch and rewrote it in blank verse and it's one of the great scenes in anthony and cleopatra. if you did that today you know,
modern authors, you know we have this endless copyright that is being stretched out to 75 years now. they would say no, you have to give plutarch's permission you know. you have changed some things but you know, basically there is so much overlap that i am sorry but you have to get his permission. so then plutarch says well you know you are a very successful playwright. i'm just a historian, a greek historian. so i'm going to have to charge you for this. so, it's a deep clause, the copyright business, a tremendous bonanza for lawyers. so i am skeptical. and i particularly emphasize the fact that all creative writing, all academic writing, all the
bills on prior stuff. the more you know about literature and the more you know about an academic field, the more you realize that the famous people and the successful people, they have are a tremendously from their predecessors. the more difficult you make it to copy, too appropriate, to build on, the more you actually creativity at the same time you are getting the financial reward, the new creator. >> so, let's move the conversation about, there is a lot in there that i would love to core with of course. [laughter] and whatever the virtue of judge subeight's about coppery there are now massive industries and
the chances of congress throwing away copyright to the detriment of all of these industries that are dependent on intellectual property is i think not realistic so i think copyright, certainly for the foreseeable future. but, when we are talking a little bit about what we might discuss, you were talking to david and me about the way your books are edited now, which i felt was really interesting. and another side of the digital world. >> what is interesting you know, all companies now, they engage in extensive outsourcing and now the harvard university press does not edit the books that
publishers. it outsources them. not all of them, but they have done a couple of mind, several of mine and i requested it with my latest book. so, the answer is this company called tnt. i don't know why it's called that. they do cloud editing which means that the manuscripts, of course electronic,, it's in a server somewhere. and you have access to it and they have access to it. and what that means is that, when you make your changes and they make their editorial changes, that is immediately visible to both the editor and the author. so, that increases the rapidity
because, you know, there is a company whose entire business is editorial work. they are really good at it and they are fast. and you know it is much, much, much easier to do rewriting and editing digitally then by hand. it's extraordinarily -- and i do a lot of writing. and a lot of rewriting of my stuff. and it's just so much easier and so it effortless on a computer, whereas by hand, you have to have it retyped. so, digitization has really done a lot not just for access but also for new authors. it is greatly simplified research and there is an extraordinary boon for judges.
they throw at us cases that we don't know anything about, and they are lawyers so they are very cagey. [laughter] they tell us just what they think. not what we need to know to vote for them and it's often very little. [laughter] and so, you know, i look at the products. i look at the companies and i find a lot of stuff. i find a lot of things that i could never find in the conventional way. so, there are chairman disadvantages, and i know there are downsides. scott is very concerned with and as the office guild fighting for the interest of the author, so i
do emphasize the fact that too much copyright detection hurts the author. you know you think of all the derivative works, so if you have seen the movie careless, i think it's called careless. it is the movie that is a take off on jane austen's ammo. clueless, i'm sorry. clueless. [laughter] that is a very good movie. that is a good movie. so if emma were still in copyright, then clueless with the eight derivative work and the copyright holder, jane austen errors would be able to block the production of clueless. so if someone wanted to do clueless, they would have to go and deal with jane austen's
descendents and it would be difficult because the person who has the idea for clueless can't tell too much of that to jane austen's at descendents if they decide to go and make their own clueless so it is very awkward to have derivative works controlled via the original, by the author of the work from which it is a derivative. as an example of the kind of blockage that copyright law creates for new creative work. >> my only response to that point is again, i am not in favor of unlimited extension of copyright, but i kind of instinctively think that there is, having a limited period
which both incentivizes people who want to write outside the university setting and frankly if everybody is writing inside the university setting, it's not unusual to be able for example to tell a short story that came out at the university of iowa writers workshop, because there are certain hallmarks of it. you know, there is great value in having creative work come from all segments of the society. so, and i do think that copyright right now does provide the incentive that it is supposed to. i think if there were no copyright, there would be a whole lot of people who would write anyway, but they would not as eagerly write the second and the third and the fourth book
when they discovered that there was a reward in it. i mean, this is an argument back and forth and where you should strike the balance, but i have to say that you know, if clueless were to be written during jane austen's lifetime, i think that is much different than -- i saw a production of the invisible man, a performance of invisible man down at the court theater and hyde park. it had been many years that the ellison estate resisted having invisible man dramatized, and i kind of feel like, within a limited period of time, that ought to be ralph ellison's right to say that i only want
people to encounter my characters, my story in the way i originally envisioned. and certainly judge posner is right that most authors are very happy to have their works dramatized anselm's and it broadens the audience and it's a good payday, although i would point out to him that a copyright didn't exist, there would not be any reward for authors in that system. but i do think there is the french concept, the continental concept of the lost morale that an author has a certain interest in the integrity of his or her own work. there is a kind of intuitive appeal to me and it's embraced in the concept of copyright. but, the bottom line though is we are entering a much much
different world and we sit in a physical edifice that existed to create access to books. i don't think we have thought of yet a good answer for certain segments of society. we cannot go on amazon, and i am not certain yet that there is an incentive anywhere to create it. >> let's got you said limited term, and he talked about the lifetime, jane austen and her lifetime. the copyright term is now 75 years from the author's desk, so the author might have died at the age of 75 and might have written his best work when he was 20, 55 years earlier.
55 plus 75 is 130. >> it wasn't the author skill that was out there asking for to be extended. >> seemed to be compressed like five years. why do we have 75 years? >> because it's mickey mouse. >> mickey mouse, mickey mouse. but partly it is sonny bono, because sonny bono skied into a tree and killed himself whereupon he became a national hero and he had famously said -- though he had famously said that copyright should he forever. and so his widow went to congress. copyright should be forever but if you want forever, how about
75 years? so between the martyred sonny bono and mick e. mouse, we have this ridiculous term. it's ridiculous also because very often, suppose you wanted to reproduce, republish something that had been written a century ago but was still copyrighted because the author had died. if it's an obscure work he might find it impossible to find out who owns the copyright. then what do you do? if there is an orphan copy -- so when i started the office of judge and someone asked me to reform the marriage ceremony i went to one of the older judges and said where is the ceremony?
he had a sheet of marriage ceremonies that he gave me an in over the years, and i write the former marriage ceremony and i give this to a couple and say you know, rewrite it, do whatever you want with it. and they do, and i keep copies. i have a tremendous collection of marriage ceremonies, which aren't a real interest in publishing but i could see how it could beat a service to publish them so people can have ideas for what to put in their marriage ceremonies. at first i couldn't do that because i don't know whether this old guy who has died several years ago, where he got these marriage ceremonies. for all i know they are copyrighted. and if anyone tried to publish them, some descendent would pop up and say you know, you infringed my copyright.
copyright causes a lot of trouble. i don't think it really pays. >> we will now turn to the face of this program for the audience has the chance to ask questions of our conversationalist, or make comments. there are going to be people with microphones, so they will bring you a microphone and then you can say what you want to say. >> well, we have been oriented here. back in the 1980s i worked for a chicago-based multinational that did a lot of business early on with china, so being nice people, they volunteered to have a chinese woman come to chicago
to learn how to set up an intellectual property department in china and northwestern participated, which was good. she went home, told them all about it, and the chinese officials said, why would anyone want to do that? and i think that is the way of lots of non-u.s. countries that are emerging to feel about that. so, let's take it out of the realm of the u.s. and western europe and talk about new intellectual property worldwide. >> certainly is the case that there are many in the developing world who regard past copyright law as a western conspiracy to hold down the developing nation, and there are certainly --
you know the chinese are famous copyright and patent pirates. the number of american business people who can tell you stories about going over to china and to take advantage of the low labor costs and with their tool and die, with their toolan tool and die sand some somehow there's a state state-owned factory that opens two or three years later right down the road using miraculously the same tool and die. this is part of our landscape and as i said the chinese are not regarded as unduly deferential to intellectual property. i suppose when they start
creating a lot of it, then their feelings will change, and then you get into issues -- the most celebrated examples are with drugs and aids medication and in western africa, where because there is a patent there is a price and these are impoverished nations that cannot afford to pay for it. their point of view, pretty understandable to me, is that it ought to be available anyway. these are lifesaving drugs. we are not talking simply about expanding the world of knowledge, but preserving lives. so, yeah, there is significant disregard for the american intellectual property system in the developing world.
>> well, the general problem is that if the country as a consumer of intellectual property rather than a producer, it has no real incentive to enforce intellectual property laws, because the only beneficiaries would read the foreigners who supply the intellectual property. i think it works out fine in the long run though, because they need access to our intellectual property to become productive. as they become productive, scott mentioned their low-wage trade. they become more productive in some wealthier countries. their wage will rise and we benefit from trade with these countries. we are actually financed by china, right? china owns a great deal of the american public debt, along with japan and other countries.
so we benefit a lot from china's growing wealth. now we have potential antagonisms with china over taiwan and the islands and they south chinese see and so on so we don't have a fully comfortable relationship with china. but, it's certainly understandable why these countries initially are as consumers of intellectual property, do not support intellectual property rights. this is true as scott mentions with patents even more so than with copyright. my experience with china, intellectual property, i have been told my books have been translated into chinese and there is a big market in china. once the dean of beijing law school came through chicago and we had lunch and he had a whole satchel full of translations of my books and into chinese.
and i was too polite to say, i actually got royalties from china in these translations, but i haven't. of course we want american ideas to penetrate in china so the fact that they are translating our books without paying royalties may be in the national interest of america. >> in a recent issue of "the new yorker" magazine there was a long article about a gentleman who wrote a fiction, a novel, and got a book contract for it and it was discovered fairly quickly that he had plagiarized almost the entire book but interestingly form many many
sources, not just from one. and in this article, the author stated that plagiarism is not against the law. is there a difference between plagiarism and copyright violation? >> yeah, plagiarism is copying. whether or not it's copyright material. you are still a plagiarist if you don't disclose. i mean if you say you know, i am copying, it's the same as an essay by don quixote. if you say -- suppose i said, i want to be a success. i want to be a popular success like scott turow so i'm just going to copy his novel and so it under by name but i
acknowledge it is all copied from him except for the title page, which has my name on it. so, i would need a copyright infringer but i would not be a play juror because i was not concealing every -- anything. on the other hand if i copy a work out of copyright but i don't acknowledge the copy that i'm a plagiarist. you're quite right, it's not illegal to be a plagiarist. it is strongly disapproved in our culture. it didn't used to be. it used to be that the concept of creativity and the renaissance in shakespeare's england was that you are free to copy anything without acknowledgment that you had to add something. you had to improve it and if you did that, then that was fine and he wouldn't be accused. it wasn't a secret that shakespeare was taking its plots
and plotting the details and so on from previous authors. but now we have this notion, sort of a romantic 19th century notion that the only creativity is originality and taking an existing work and improving it to improve it decisively, that is not creative. and so if you don't technology, if you don't acknowledge it, you are guilty of a sin which gets you fired and so on. i wrote a little book on plagiarism and there was a harvard student, i forgot the name now. it's an indian name, who had written a check -- chick lit novel and it was discovered, and she had a 500,000-dollar movie deal i think.
it was looking like tremendous success and then it turned out that she had plagiarized part of her novel from another well-known chiclet author so she was disgraced and she lost her $500,000, contracts and so on. i read her book and i gave particular attention to plagiarism. it turned out she hadn't taken the whole book or anything like that. she had taken another -- and never passages but it will was interesting about it, every passage she had taken she had revised and they were better so she had improved the original. maybe because she had taken stuff from the predecessor and she should be forced to pay a fee or something. if she had gone to this person and said you know i like your book and i would like to take some stuff out of it, i don't
think your book is very well-written however. [laughter] when i take your stuff i'm going to revise it. this does not work, so if you are allowed this unauthorized copy with improvement you lose some genuine creative work but not regarded as proper in our culture. 's being this is a comment more than a question. i would like to sort of circle back around to the things he were talking about very earlier, just about access. i am a librarian and i work in a law firm so i have access as to most of the people who are here. but i am an intentional luddite on the weekends. i do not have a computer at home and i choose not to.
i have that option to choose not to bet there are any number of people in this culture and increasingly more of them who do not have that option. so when i go to the library on the weekends, i get to see what it's like for people who don't have access. e-books are not an option for them. how do you respond to people who don't have access? >> people who don't have access to the internet? well, you don't need money to -- i don't know why this applies to accessing a book on the internet. i think all books --
how much a month? [laughter] how much a month is internet access? >> well, it varies. >> well, computers now are very intensive and we are talking about a few hundred dollars. obviously there are people who don't have that money. if you want to have -- if you want to subsidize access for poor people, it's fine with me. i don't have any objection to that. intrinsically the cost of electronic distribution and access are very low. if you want to lower it more for subsidies for people who can't afford it, it's fine with me.
>> i alluded to this before, but this really is the function that the library has always played in our society, and i do believe in free access to knowledge, and i think it's important that there be a portal in the society for those who either can't afford it or have some scruple against it, and that place has been the library. while i agree with judge posner that libraries are being rendered and anachronistic by a lot of technological development, i care very much about the problems that you are talking about, which is, it
shouldn't be the case that the world of knowledge is closed to those without resources. >> i think we are going to leave it there. i would like to express on behalf of the newberry might thanks to our conversationalists this evening, mr. turow and judge posner. i want to thank you for being part of this conversation tonight and i will just end by saying i wish we had some walt disney manuscripts at the newberry library, and i'm going to check into that tomorrow. thank you all and we will see you back here the next time. [applause]
no, as important as this project has become to my life, i can seriously remember the first time i learned about this between to future presidents in 1789 but what i do remember is reading about it in a book and it was treated with the typical one or two sentences he would see about this congressional race and i thought to myself way to bury the lead. all of a sudden we are in this race between to future presidents, james madison and james monroe that are debating the most important issues we have ever talked about as a country whether we should have a bill of rights mow what kind of unions we should have and then all of a sudden you are on the next page and they are there in the first congress. way to bury the lead. i decided i would read everything i could about the 1789 election what i found was no one had written anything about a before and i decided i was going to tell the story. the book founding rivals pulled open the inauguration of george washington. what many people don't know is that when he took the oath of
office, the two of the 13 states were outside the union. north carolina and rhode island did not ratify the constitution because of their concern that it was missing a bill of rights. i guarantee a fundamental liberty. this was common for the anti-federalist throughout the continent. the common denominator among the anti-federalist of which james monroe was one, was that they oppose the constitution. many of them came at it from different angles. some of them genuinely believed he could not have the union that covered all of these different and diverse states. they believed an independent state or perhaps original confederacies but they didn't think any government could ever be suitable for this entire continent. james renaud represented them at -- majority of anti-federalist opinion and that his objection to the constitution was centered around missing the bill of rights. while washington took the oath of office, two states, new york and virginia where agitating for a new constitutional convention. in the words of james madison and george washington, they were
terrified of this prospect or do they believed it would be infiltrated by enemies of the new government and the competition would be scrapped and done away with and their union would be fractured, never ever to come together again. >> you can watch this and other programs on line that booktv.org. up next jono lair looks at the science behind creative thinking and shows how can be an applied to solve style problems. this is just under one hour. >> thank you so much to the museum for having me. thank you all for coming. it's a tremendous honor and pleasure to be here to talk about creativity. i would like to begin tonight with the story about bob dylan. it takes place in the early summer of 1965, when dylan is finishing up his tour of england. it's been a grueling few months
that dylan has been struggling me to maintain a nonstop performance schedule. he first traveled across the northeast on a bus playing in small college towns in big-city theaters and then he crossed over to the west coast and crammed in a hectic few weeks of concerts and promotions. he had been paraded in front of the press and asked an endless series of inane questions from what is the truth, to why is there a cat on the cover of your last album? when dylan was not certainly he was often sarcastic telling journalists he collected monkey wrenches, was born in mexico and the songs were inspired by chaos, watermelon and clocks. that last line almost made him smile. by the time dylan arrived in london, it was clear that the tour was taking a toll. the singer was skinny from insomnia and pills. his nails were yellow from nicotine and his skin had it ghostly pale pallor. joan baez said he looked like an underfed angel. for